MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521703355 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n10p1

Firm Growth and Technical Efficiency in Ethiopia: The Role of Firm Size and Finance

2016· article· en· W2521703355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Habtamu Edjigu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Panel dataCash flowEconometricsFrontierEconomicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Asset (computer security)Monetary economicsFinanceStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The performance of manufacturing firms can play a crucial rule in spurring economic growth and international competency. However, it has received little attention in developing countries particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Using firm level data from 2000 to 2008 survey, this paper empirically investigates the key determinants of growth and technical efficiency of Ethiopian manufacturing establishments focusing on the impact of size and finance. The empirical result using dynamic panel data estimation suggest that small and young firms grow more rapidly. Leverage ratio and cash flow are also main determinants of firm growth. However, they have heterogeneous effect. While, the availability of internal finance significantly affect the growth of smaller firms, leverage (borrowing) represent a binding constraint for growth of large firms. Firm’s asset, labour quality, ownership and legal status are also binding constraints for growth of firm in Ethiopia. Moreover, a stochastic frontier analysis of the production function shows that there is significant difference in efficiency scores across firms. The result shows that efficiency score increases with firm size and cash flow but decrease with borrowing.</p><p> </p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207